The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant.

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the progress records of the instant case.

A. On July 13, 1974, in the case No. 14, 17, and 18 of the 74th Before the Emergency Decree No. 2, which was established by the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 2 on January 8, 1974, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree, conspiracy of insurrection, and bribery grant, 20 years, and suspension of qualification for 15 years (hereinafter “the judgment of the court below”).

B. On September 7, 1974, the judgment of the court below was reversed on the part of the defendant in the case of the 74th non-permanent High Military Court-Martial Order No. 14, 15, and 16, which was proceeded by the defendant's appeal, and the decision was rendered on September 7, 1974, which was sentenced to the suspension of qualification for 12 years and suspension of qualification for 12 years and forfeiture (hereinafter "decision subject to a retrial"). The Supreme Court Decision 74Do323 Decided April 8, 1975, which was proceeded by the defendant's appeal, became final and conclusive as the judgment subject to a retrial was dismissed

(c)

On September 26, 2017, the defendant requested a retrial on the judgment subject to a retrial, and this court decided on May 31, 2018 to commence a retrial.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. The protocol of interrogation of each suspect against the defendant and the co-defendants in co-defendants in the preparation of the military prosecutor's conviction based on non-Admissibility of evidence is conducted by illegal confinement, adviser, coercion, etc., and it is not admissible as evidence.

In addition, the statement statement made by a witness to other persons such as D and E, as well as the defendant did not consent to the admissibility of evidence, and the authenticity of the statement made by the original person's legal statement has not been recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which considered each of the above evidences as evidence of conviction is unfair.

B. The Defendant was not guilty of inciting insurrection, and there was no violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 1 and the violation of public law. The Defendant did not have any relationship with the National Youth Federation (hereinafter “Private Youth Federation”).